Continuation Part Seven: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[anglolawyer]

You are wrong. Your argument is invalig and illogical everywhere.

Invalid and illogical, eh? Have you been reading too many Cassazione judgments, Mach? Not every argument rests on validity or logic. Some things are just matters of life experience. Burglars sometimes do this, thieves sometimes do that. Not all their actions (and not all ours) are valid, logical or the opposite.

"He might have taken them with one idea but realised it was not a good one and tossed them over Lana's hedge or he might have taken them to toss them" is the repetition of the hypothesys which I have already shown to be weak and unproven. Therefore it is not good to convict someone on it. You may think it's possible, but you have no proof. Guede could never be convicted of theft base on it.

You have shown nothing and it is only unproven because no one tried to prove it and no one tried to prove it because no one wanted to prove it and no one wanted to prove it because proving it would have proved at the same time that those proving it were dopes when they had set about trying prove something wildly different.

If it were a crime to place a bloody foot on a bathmat but perfectly legal to murder someone, I could prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Guede's print is on that mat. It is all a question of focus.

And what I said is perfectly consistent, not contradictory at all. Is motive necessary to convict? No. But the logic is as follows: motive can be relevant only insofar as it is evidence. If motive is evidence, that is if there is logical evidence of a motive, this is relevant in one direction or in the other. If facts have no logical content as for a motive, motive is irrelevant.
So motive is unnecessary on principle, but might be relevant if facts indicate that evidence exists as a pice circumstantial evidence.
You should understand this as a lawyer.

Yes, I think understand. You don't put it very well but I agree with what you say (assuming I understand you correctly). Motive is a type of circumstantial evidence. If you have such evidence then you have to see where it takes you, how it fits with other evidence. But remember, there almost always is a motive for murder. In fact, you can probably take away the 'almost'. Killing people is against the law and you go to prison for a long time if caught. Therefore, you need a good reason to do it.

Having a motive is a weakness. Try to conceive of the perfect murder but, to make it realistic, the murder has to be of someone you have a motive to kill, not some random person you never met before. Possessing the motive gives you a huge problem. It makes the exercise much harder. It makes the police look in your direction and they must see nothing untoward when they do. Seeking motive gives investigative direction to the cops: who had a reason to do this? It is very important and should not be dismissed on the narrow basis that, strictly speaking, it does not have to be proved. Strictly speaking it does not but that does not make examination of the motives of the players irrelevant. Hence the focus on strife between Amanda and Meredith. There tends to be less focus on Raffaele who cannot have had any real animus against the victim at all and must therefore be bent into shape to fit one or other of the scenarios favoured by your side: knife obsessed nutter, pawn in the hands of the she-devil, bored and out for fun, off his head on mind-alterating substances etc etc etc. Evidence? Nah.

Guede's DNA was not inside the bag: it was outside the bag, and one of the phones used to be in the pocket Meredith's jeans. He would not keep it in her purse. Moreover, not many people could guess Meredith had two phones. In order to search for it, you need to know it exists.

Oh sorreeee! Outside the bag! That makes all the difference of course. His DNA was on her bag, inside or outside, it's evidence he touched her bag and she did have two phones and I guess she kept at last one in the bag we know he touched. If we are being 'logical' what is not logical about imagining a thief looking in her bag for money and keys and finding and taking her phone?

My purpose, explaining all of this, is to show there was no evidence to convict Guede of the theft of the phones (that would not have added anyhing significant to his final 16 years sentence anyway).

Utter poppycock. There was overwhelming evidence against Guede of going equipped to steal, possession of an offensive weapon, aggravated burglary, criminal damage, theft, rape and murder. It is only if you stipulate, in the absence of any evidence obliging you to do so, that others besides Rudy and the victim were present that any room for doubt arises. But there is no such evidence.

But if you have enough evidence that someone performed a staging, and (just to add something firthr) also indication that Guede instead ran away immediataly, than you may have enough evidence to attribute the theft of the phones to the stagers, since the theft is in the first and stronger explanation, a staging/alteration activity.

It's a big if. Just as a matter of interest, what time (approximately) do you say Guede ran away when he ran away 'immediately'? And what had happened 'immediately' before he ran away?

 

[Diocletus]

This is an example of unfounded assertion. There is no evidence and no element indicating Giacomo was a drug dealer whatsoever. No sane person would consider the five mini-marjuana plants as a drug dealer's storage.

Well, that's a fair point. I don't know whether penniless Rudy was bringing the drugs to Giacomo, or whether Giacomo was supplying drugs and a sleeping place for Rudy on the toilet. Doesn't really matter, though, as Giacomo introduced this element to the cottage.

Anyway, I didn't say that they were smoking the "mini marijuana." That was a separate criminal activity of Giacomo.

As for contacts, maybe you also forget about the phone contacts between Knox and the Piazza Grimana drug dalers gang.

Who? Curatalo?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Vinci or Rinaldi

The mixed DNA Luminol print in the hallway near Filomena's door is a shoe print, not a foot print. Both Massei and Hellman incorrectly call it a footprint.

Both Vinci's report and Stefanoni's testimony confirm it is a shoe print. You can also tell by the photo it is an unidentified shoe print not consistent with the patterns of the tennis shoes found, it is rather a smooth surface, like a dress shoe or one of the footies worn by the bunnies wandering around the cottage.

Vinci is unable to match this shoe print with any of the reference shoes he has. Not enough emphasis has been placed on this in my opinion. It makes me wish there was a picture of the "blob" found in Filomena's room. Common sense would suggest it is a good possibility that it was made by the same person.

RoseMontague,

Do you mean Vinci or Rinaldi or both?

 

[Diocletus]

The word "notary" says exactly this.

But he's not a notary. He's the PM. No one cares that he wants to be "like a notary" for purposes of evading his responsibility for a gross violation of human rights.

BTW: Where are Mr. "like a notary"'s notes of the statements that Knox was making? Presumably, Mignini didn't type up the statement, so he must have his notary notes somewhere else.

 

[Paninaro]

But the guilt of Knox and Sollecito is no fantasy. It's a proven fact. If you assume their guilt as a proven fact, then it is normal that you will consider that conjectures about their motives based on factual elements are reasonble.
Your accusations agaisnt Mignini and Stefanoni, or against Quintavalle, instead, are defamatory falsehoods. Your calling names of of Nara Capezzali is a gratuitous insult. Unproven and unsubstantiated, or proven false, assertions of facts.

But witnesses don't have to lie in order to be mistaken or wrong. You must be aware that witnesses in trials often are wrong without malicious intent?

Have I got this wrong or did Mignini in trial express belief that Guede was probably guilty of breaking in at Tramontano's place?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9820161&postcount=7197

 

[RoseMontague]

RoseMontague,

Do you mean Vinci or Rinaldi or both?

Rinaldi and Stefanoni, sorry. I will have to check to see if Vinci also covered this one.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

facts, logic, and science

Also I doubt anyone in Italy really believes America will extradite Amanda.

Those connected to case are fully aware of shall I say the non-Italian negative comments about this case. However, I believe the criticism has had the effect on those institutions involved of closing ranks.

CousdonUK,

If reason prevails, Amanda will not be extradited, but facts, logic, and science have a poor track record in this case. As to your other point, the ranks would have closed, whether there had been criticism or not. Until the Court of Supreme Cassation made their ruling last year, I thought that this case was a routine example of a false conviction. They kicked it up a notch. MOO.

 

[Grinder]

Why didn't the cop pick a knife that matched the wounds? One would presume if there was a conspiracy there would have been a match. If it was just a cop showing some initiative by "finding" a potential murder weapon for a murder that involved a lot of blood and a cut throat, he might just pick a big knife because it looked to him like it could have done the job. It really could be that simple. It is their job to make a case against whomever the PM chooses as his target, not to follow the evidence to a suspect.

The English tabs and I assume the Italian tabs were calling the murder weapon a pen-knife in the days after the murder and before the knife was taken from Raf's. It would be incompetence either way. If they were on a mission to prove the PM's case, they should be coordinated enough to get one that matched the wounds and outline.

The more conspiracy type theories are put forward the less credible the theory becomes in the eyes of the general public. I don't see any need to claim any conspiracy in the early days for sure. I think incompetence can be shown and that there is not evidence for a beyond a reasonable doubt conviction. That's what I would demonstrate repeatably.

 

[Diocletus]

Actually, this will not happen, but if it happens Knox will be in jail by that time,

There a long road to travel before Amanda Knox is in jail. Among other hurdles, Senator Cantwell says that she isn't going to jail. Do you understand the implications of that?

 

[Diocletus]

The English tabs and I assume the Italian tabs were calling the murder weapon a pen-knife in the days after the murder and before the knife was taken from Raf's. It would be incompetence either way. If they were on a mission to prove the PM's case, they should be coordinated enough to get one that matched the wounds and outline.

Well, that would make sense. Except in Perugia, where they had actually seized a pen knife from Raffaelle's person, ergo, it was the murder weapon. Lucky for Lumumba that they never got any knives off of him.

 

[Bill Williams]

The word "notary" says exactly this.

And once again, ladies and gentleman, Machiavelli makes a drive-by assertion, without even explaining what this has to do with the argument he and I are having.

This is the perfect example of the case, for the last 6 years, the Italian judiciary has tried (an - internally - been successful) at building against Raffaele and Knox.

Just throw out evidenceless assertions.

A Boy's night out.

Pooh in the toilet leading to Meredith getting completely uncharacteristically bitchy, causing her murder. (No one believes that about Meredith!)

Sex game gone wrong.

A badly timed, "choice for evil".

Argument over rent money.

Jealousy between Knox and Kercher.

Ritual killing to do with day-of-the-dead.

Satanic ritual.

How many of these does the various prosecutions get to toss out there, with no evidence at all to suggest any one of them is remotely true?

 

[Caper]

Do we know where AK and RS got the drugs they were smoking? The pro guilt side argues that AK knew Rudy, because he was apparently her drug dealer.... (I think I heard that before). Do we know where they actually got the drugs from?

 

[acbytesla]

Do we know where AK and RS got the drugs they were smoking? The pro guilt side argues that AK knew Rudy, because he was apparently her drug dealer.... (I think I heard that before). Do we know where they actually got the drugs from?

I'm not sure. Amanda can get pot from the guys downstairs and contrary to all the discussion about Rudy being a drug dealer, there is no proof that Rudy was a drug dealer. I think it is more likely that Raffaele bought the marijuana that they were smoking that night than Amanda.

 

[Diocletus]

I'm not sure. Amanda can get pot from the guys downstairs and contrary to all the discussion about Rudy being a drug dealer, there is no proof that Rudy was a drug dealer. I think it is more likely that Raffaele bought the marijuana that they were smoking that night than Amanda.

Rudy didn't have any money, so he probably just sold whatever drugs he could steal.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Laura supplied the flat IIRC

I seem to recall that Laura had a supplier for the marijuana that the women smoked, but I could be wrong. I am fairly sure that it was Laura who told Amanda to lie about this. Bad advice from Laura, IMO. Raffaele never met Rudy.

 

[anglolawyer]

The English tabs and I assume the Italian tabs were calling the murder weapon a pen-knife in the days after the murder and before the knife was taken from Raf's. It would be incompetence either way. If they were on a mission to prove the PM's case, they should be coordinated enough to get one that matched the wounds and outline.

The more conspiracy type theories are put forward the less credible the theory becomes in the eyes of the general public. I don't see any need to claim any conspiracy in the early days for sure. I think incompetence can be shown and that there is not evidence for a beyond a reasonable doubt conviction. That's what I would demonstrate repeatably.

But now you are scene-shifting from what actually happened to what is tactically advantageous to stress or argue. You maintain that selection of the knife, inexplicable non-selection of other candidate knives and the triumphal discovery of incriminating, low-template, non-verifiable DNA on that knife all result from incompetence, even though the DNA evidence has had to be extracted via a tissue of lies coupled with the suppression and destruction of evidence. No one was trying to frame anybody, the whole thing was just a stroke of terribly bad luck. Hereafter, it will be my duty to remind you of this at regular intervals.

Just what would you accept as evidence of fraud?

 

[Kestrel]

In the simplified world of TV crime dramas, trace evidence collected by technicians at a crime scene is always related to the crime. In the real world, it's a lot more complicated. Finding fingerprints or DNA from a person does not by itself prove they were present when the crime occurred, only that they were present at some time.

Scriptwriters also ignore the fact that Luminol reacts to many substances other than blood. But in fact, the Luminol reactions you see on TV are a reacting to bleach. The special effects people would rather not have real human blood on the set.

The Luminol revealed marks in the hallway are not linked to the time of the crime. The test to confirm they were blood came up negative. The substance that generated those marks is unknown, but most likely a cleaning product containing bleach or rusty water leaked from one of the cottage radiators.

The mark in Filomena's room that contains DNA from Meredith and Amanda is more interesting. But a mixed DNA swab only tells indicates DNA from those persons was present at the spot swabbed. It doesn't tell us that both DNA samples were left at the same time.

 

[RoseMontague]

Rinaldi and Stefanoni, sorry. I will have to check to see if Vinci also covered this one.

I am not seeing this in Vinci's testimony which mainly covers the bathmat print (not Raffaele), the print on the pillowcase (not Amanda), and the knife print (not the kitchen knife).

However since both Rinalldi and Stefi call it a shoe print, and it looks like a shoe print, we can reasonably conclude that it is very likely a shoe print.

 

[Dan O.]

Kaosium basically admitted the pillow under the body is not a proof of this scenario. It's merely a detail which the pro-Knoxes interpret as suggestive.
But in fact it is not. In my opinion the same pillowcase physical scenario also contains evidence of the contrary.
For example the absence of any bloody hand print on Meredith's body, it's evidence suggesting that the person who left the palm print on the pillow is not the same person who placed it under the body. Try to lift a body and place a pillow under it while having a bloody hand, see if you don't leave traces on the body.
And also imagine, Guede "raping" (touching, grabbing) a body wihout leaving any bloody fingerprint or blood smear on it.

ILE would be totally confused if a criminal ever decided to wash their hands in the middle of a crime. We've seen this argument before from Mignini claiming that the bathmat print could not be Rudy's because Rudy left bloody shoe prints. A stupid argument that does not consider the possibility that shoes are removable just as your argument does not consider the possibility that blood can be washed or wiped off of hands given the availability of water and towels.

And you still aren't looking at the purported semen stain. Can you not see this evidence for yourself? Must you always look through others eyes?! It's more of what I said earlier about fitting into the picture.

Rudy grabbed the pillow with a bloody hand. This is undisputed but the timing has not been established. The contact print shows considerable detail, enough to allow a match to Rudy's print on file but not enough to identify the owner of the print through a computer search (evidence to the contrary would be welcome). This indicates that Rudy's palm was painted with blood such as with secondary transfer like you get from the ink plate when taking a suspects finger print and not from the direct application of blood to the hand used for the stabbing and subsequently used to open Meredith's door. Before the stabbing there is no blood so the timing for the hand print on the pillow must be after the stabbing and after the blood on the hands from the stabbing is initially cleaned off. So, sometime after the stabbing rudy grabbed the pillow, moved it to the floor and walked all over it. This is obviously before Meredith is placed on the pillow.

But I asked you to look at the purported semen stain. This stain is on the pillow in an area that would place it directly under Meredith's genitalia. We can also time the stain because the same bloody shoe prints that we see on the pillow stepped on the stain and transferred it to a print in the middle of the pillow. That means that the stain was still fresh, it had not dried at this time after the murder.

Can you see it now or do I have to rub your nose in it.

 

[acbytesla]

What you have provided is evidence that you fail to understand a logical phrase. "Amanda decided to release a statement" has exactly the same meaning of what Mignini said to Drew Griffin.
But you are unable to read statements without twisting them.

With all due respect Machiavelli, it is you that are constantly twisting the statement. In fact, you are a master at it. I'd almost think you were Bill Clinton saying "It depends on the definition of is".